Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - Matthew 19
Verse Commentaries:
Chapter Level Commentary:
After λέγοντες Elz. and Scholz insert αὐτῷ , which, owing to the preponderance of evidence against it, is to be regarded as a common interpolation, as are also αὐτοῖς , Mat_19:4, αὐτήν , Mat_19:7.
ἀνθρώπῳ ] is wanting in B L Γ à * min. Aug., deleted by Lachm. Correctly; supplement from Mat_19:5, and for which Cod. 4 has ἀνδρί (Mar_10:2).
Mat_19:5. προσκολληθ .] Lachm. and Tisch., also Fritzsche; κολληθ ., following very weighty evidence. The compound form, however, is more common, and is taken from the LXX.
Mat_19:9. ὅτι before ὅς is not, with Lachm. and Tisch. 7, to be deleted. It has the preponderance of evidence in its favour, and how readily may it have been overlooked, especially before ὅς , seeing that it is not indispensable.
Instead of μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ Lachm. has παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας , following B D, min. It. Or., but clearly borrowed from Mat_5:32 by way of a gloss. For μή , Elz. and Scholz have εἰ μή , against decisive evidence; an exegetical addition.
κ . ὁ ἀπολελυμ . γαμ . μοιχᾶται ] are deleted by Tisch. 8, following C** D L S à , vss. Or.? Chrys. But there is preponderating evidence in favour of the words, and the homoeoteleuton might readily enough be the occasion of their omission. Moreover, there is no parallel passage verbally identical with this.
Mat_19:13. προσηνέχθη ] Lachm. and Tisch.: προσηνέχθησαν , following B C D L à , min. Or. In presence of such weighty evidence, the singular is to be regarded as a grammatical correction.
Mat_19:16. ἀγαθέ ] is justly condemned by Griesb. and deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. (B D L à , min. codd. of It. Or. Hilar.). Inserted from Mar_10:17; Luk_18:18.
Mat_19:17. The Received text (so also Fritzsche and Scholz) has τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν ; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός . But the reading: τί με ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ ; εἷς ἐστὶν ὁ ἀγαθός , is attested by the very weighty evidence of B D L à , Vulg. It. Or. and other vss. and Fathers. So Griesb., Lachm., Tisch. The reading of the Received text is taken from Mark and Luke, and would be adopted all the more readily the more the original reading seemed, as it might easily seem, to be inappropriate.[2] The order: εἰς τὴν ζωὴν εἰσελθ . (Lachm., Tisch.), has decisive attestation; but τηρεῖ (Lachm., Tisch. 7) for τήρησον finds but inadequate support, being favoured merely by B D, Homil. Cl.
Mat_19:20. ἐφυλαξάμην ἐκ νεότητός μου ] Lachm. and Tisch.: ἐφύλαξα , following important, though not quite unanimous, witnesses (B D L à * among the uncial manuscripts; but D has retained ἐκ νεότ ., though omitting μου ). The reading of the Received text is taken from Luke and Mark.
Mat_19:23. Lachm. and Tisch., following decisive evidence, read πλούσιος δυσκόλως .
Mat_19:24. Instead of the first εἰσελθεῖν , Elz. has διελθεῖν , which is defended by Fritzsche and Rinck, and also adopted again by Lachm., in opposition to Griesb., Matth., Scholz, Schulz, Tisch., who read εἰσελθεῖν . The evidence on both sides is very weighty. διελθεῖν is a correction for sake of the sense, with which εἰσελθεῖν was supposed not to agree. Comp. note on Mar_10:25; Luk_18:25. If the second ἘΙΣΕΛΘΕῖΝ were to be retained, the preponderance of evidence would be in favour of inserting it after ΠΛΟΎΣΙΟΝ (Lachm.); but we must, with Tisch., following L Z à , 1, 33, Syrcur Or. and other Fathers, delete it as being a supplement from the parallel passages.
Mat_19:28. For ΚΑῚ ὙΜΕῖς read, with Tisch. 8, ΚΑῚ ΑὐΤΟΊ , following D L Z à , 1, 124, Or. Ambr. The reading of the Received text is an exegetical gloss.
Mat_19:29. ὍΣΤΙς ] The simple Ὅς (Elz., Griesb., Fritzsche, Scholz) is opposed by preponderating evidence; ΤΙς was omitted as unnecessary (but comp. Mat_7:21, Mat_10:32).
Ἢ ΓΥΝΑῖΚΑ ] after ΜΗΤ . is correctly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., on the evidence of B D, 1, Or. Ir. Hil. vss. Taken from Mark and Luke.
For ἙΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΠΛΑΣΊΟΝΑ Lachm. and Tisch. have ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑΣΙΟΝΑ , following B L, Syrjer Sahid. Or. Cyr. Correctly; it would be much more natural to explain the indefinite ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑς . from Mar_10:30 by means of the definite expression ἙΚΑΤΟΝΤΑΠΛΑς ., than to explain the latter from Luk_18:30 by means of ΠΟΛΛΑΠΛΑς .
[2] So also Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 268 f. Differently Hilgenfeld in the Theol. Jahrb. 1857, p. 414 f., but not on critical evidence.